4 ms·

yeah, exactly, it's not real science. Doesn't matter why. Atomic bombs are very dangerous too and not very easy to "test them right", but atomic physics is a r

yeah, exactly, it's not real science. Doesn't matter why. Atomic bombs are very dangerous too and not very easy to "test them right", but atomic physics is a real science. Anyway, the problem in psychology is that psychologists often lie and fabricate false evidence, not that the rats aren't enough. There are multiple studies about it, published by scientists, most of them agree that "Don’t trust everything you read in the psychology literature. In fact, two thirds of it should probably be distrusted." There's a point where a field can't keep going on shielding behind the false myth that "the problem is that we can't test on humans".

lukeinator42 3y ago
Exactly, and the irony is that there are a lot of cognitive neuroscientists doing human participant research all the time. It's honestly easier than doing the ethics for animal research these days. I don't understand all the comments from everyone saying it's impossible to do reliable research with human participants, haha.
micromacrofoot 3y ago
Sorry if I misunderstood, it's just that at times "real science" is used to discredit psychology as a field entirely so there's a bit of defensiveness involved.
hutzlibu 3y ago
"There are multiple studies about it, published by scientists, most of them agree that "Don’t trust everything you read in the psychology literature. In fact, two thirds of it should probably be distrusted."" Can you link a study, that makes such a claim?
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  > Can you link a study, that makes such a claim? Of course I can, I took it from a study! https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248 -------------------- some other studies on the subject, not all agreeing on the conclusions, as it is natural https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29861517/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29861517/ https://www.sciencealert.com/two-more-classic-psychology-studies-just-failed-the-reproducibility-test https://www.sciencealert.com/two-more-classic-psychology-stu... https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208863120 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208863120 the real problem is that the kind of psychology studies that gets the more attention on the media, that shape the culture and the beliefs of the general public and that are often used by governs and institutions (even medical ones) to deploy policies, health care plans, school or work environment guidelines, etc. etc. are those that are less trustworthy, that fail to be replicated the most and more subject to interpretations and subjective biases, in particular social psychology (citation: Social Psychology (38% success rate, n = 256).)

lukeinator42 3y ago

Exactly, and the irony is that there are a lot of cognitive neuroscientists doing human participant research all the time. It's honestly easier than doing the ethics for animal research these days. I don't understand all the comments from everyone saying it's impossible to do reliable research with human participants, haha.

micromacrofoot 3y ago

Sorry if I misunderstood, it's just that at times "real science" is used to discredit psychology as a field entirely so there's a bit of defensiveness involved.

hutzlibu 3y ago

"There are multiple studies about it, published by scientists, most of them agree that "Don’t trust everything you read in the psychology literature. In fact, two thirds of it should probably be distrusted."" Can you link a study, that makes such a claim?

peoplefromibiza 3y ago
> Can you link a study, that makes such a claim? Of course I can, I took it from a study! https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248 -------------------- some other studies on the subject, not all agreeing on the conclusions, as it is natural https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29861517/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29861517/ https://www.sciencealert.com/two-more-classic-psychology-studies-just-failed-the-reproducibility-test https://www.sciencealert.com/two-more-classic-psychology-stu... https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208863120 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208863120 the real problem is that the kind of psychology studies that gets the more attention on the media, that shape the culture and the beliefs of the general public and that are often used by governs and institutions (even medical ones) to deploy policies, health care plans, school or work environment guidelines, etc. etc. are those that are less trustworthy, that fail to be replicated the most and more subject to interpretations and subjective biases, in particular social psychology (citation: Social Psychology (38% success rate, n = 256).)